Comments on: In defence of Caroline Spelman

By: Letters From A Tory

Letters From A Tory — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:01:30 +0000

This is such a non-story. I really wish the media would distinguish between MPs who seem to do little wrong (if anything) versus those who screw over £700,000 out of the taxpayer.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

By: » A balanced debate in the blogosphere?

» A balanced debate in the blogosphere? — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:17:08 +0000

[...] are defending, of course, and a few are managing to remain objective and see the wider picture. I particularly like this conclusion, [...]

By: James Graham

James Graham — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:19:14 +0000

Actually, I’d go further in that if it does turn out her statement today was a tissue of lies, she’s fucked. But I don’t accept there is any evidence to suggest that.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:09:57 +0000

I’d concede she should pay it back in real terms (RPI) but calling for interest is a little petty.

By: Lois

Lois — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:05:41 +0000

James Graham says ‘if she was paying her nanny for nannying, if it ended a decade ago and she stopped it, it is hardly a scandal in the league of the Giles Chichester incident’

As long as she paid back the dosh - with interest

By: James Graham

James Graham — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:35:40 +0000

I would add that even if she was paying her nanny for nannying, if it ended a decade ago and she stopped it, it is hardly a scandal in the league of the Giles Chichester incident (itself pretty small fry in the big scheme of things).

By: James Graham

James Graham — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:25:15 +0000

But no-one, least of all Crick, has offered any evidence that she was paid to nanny between 1997 and 1998. By contrast, no one is disputing that she wasn’t paid out of expenses for anything between 1998 and 2003. It seems like a pretty weak case to me, based purely on Crick’s team mounting a sting on an ex-nanny over an incident more than a decade ago.

The way these stings work incidently, is that Crick gets a researcher to phone them up and have a nice, cosy, ‘I’m on your side’ chat. Then an hour later Crick himself rings them up and barracks them, throwing their own words back at them. Against an experienced politico that is reasonably fair enough, but against an ex-nanny who has never, as far as I’m aware, gone into politics at any level, it whiffs.

By: Jonathan Calder

Jonathan Calder — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:54:01 +0000

“There is no doubt that her decision to employ her nanny to do some secretarial work for her after first getting elected in 1997 was in clear breach of the rules.”

If the nanny really did do secretarial work I do not think anyone will mind. Surely the charge is that the nanny was busy being a nanny and did not do any secretarial work?